May 24, 2006

(1) …they were winking at one another and nudging each other theatrically while lighting Cuban cigars with $100 bills
(2) …they were actually fumbling with their paper-shredding machines while talking to the New York Times
(3) …they had plate glass installed in the sides of their heads?

I've heard the Republicans described as "the party of privilege". If my memory isn't playing tricks, the word privilege comes from roots meaning "private law" or "a law affecting one person". In other words, the aristocracy is subject to a higher law than the law which applies to the great unwashed masses. Aristocratic lawmakers do not think twice about passing draconian laws for which they personally have an immunity.

Such aristocrats tend to freak out when they find themselves in danger of suddenly becoming subject to said draconian laws.

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
- Martin Niemoeller

"We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Department of Justice is doing its job in investigating criminal wrongdoing, and we have an obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists," Mr. Gonzales said.

Unless it's investigating the White House leaking a CIA agent's name, torture, warrantless wiretapping, or George Bush eating live babies. Those are protected.

Gee, just discovered it? "Obscure" part of the Constitution? Aren't most of these guys lawyers? It isn't a long document. And this is what that other Congressman (RI I think, just went into rehab, what's his name...) claimed when he drove his car over the curb (he claimed he was headed to the Capitol for a vote)?

Plus, the Congress has its own police force. They should have been consulted as a jurisdictional issue.

Oh boy. Isn't this the Chinese Curse; "may we live in interesting times"? And I agree with Josh Jasper, we're all for tracking down crime and trying people in the court of public opinion until they're the "right kind" of people.

Or, is this the Brer Rabbit routine of, "No, please don't throw my brother Congrssman into that brier patch," with assorted singing, dancing, and hand-washing er, hand-wringing while the Big Boys lob a choice pitch to the newly renovated Supreme Court to get a decision on privacy and broad-based executive powers?

One thing to keep in mind, this was a Search Warrant, not a National Security Letter. That means it had to be signed by a judge. So I think hte "hand wringing," etc may also have a "what have we done" component.

Huh. If they got an actual judge to sign the search warrant, isn't that *two* branches of government ganging up on the third?

It seems like a dangerous game for the executive branch to play to me. If this stands, in light of language in the Constitution establishing that each of the branches of government is co-equal, it would imply that a search warrant for the Oval Office could stand equally well...

The one clause in Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that wasn't complete hogwash was the bit about the ABC laws, where ABC stood for "Anyone but Congress." There's a surprisingly large body of law wherein Congress specifically exempted its own members from having to comply. (The one that comes to mind now is the obligation to pay social security taxes on behalf of domestic help.)

Maybe Hastert and his buddies believe such an exemption also exists for bribery, embezzlement, shoplifting from Target...

In this case, there really may be no consitution question of substance. Over at TalkLeft, there is a post by Last Night in Little Rock (who I believe is John Wesley Hall), an attorney with pactice that includes a great deal of Fourth Amendment work. The money quote:

In Rep. Jefferson's case, however, "separation of powers" just won't cut it if the affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in his office. The same would apply to the President, the Vice President, their staffs, and the judiciary: If there is probable cause linking the place to be searched with an alleged crime, the search has the imprimatur of the law, is presumptively valid under the Fourth Amendment, and that is all that will be required to defeat a separation of powers claim. His private papers concerning his thoughts and votes are not off limits to a search warrant if the allegation in the affidavit is that the vote was paid for. That is bribery of a Member of Congress, and no Congressman is immune from that. Ask former Rep. Duke Cunningham.

Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements.

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.

Lizzy L: A nation of laws, but only if they benefit friends of Shrub. The rest of us are only here to provide the funding and labor. (Yes, I'm mad. I've sent for an absentee ballot, so my vote will be in ink, and I'm not voting for DiFi.)

Lizzy, I don't know if they do either, but it's harder to change the vote if it's on paper. (I know someone who uses vote counting as an example of an implied right: it doesn't say anything anywhere in the Constitution about actually counting the votes!)

Kevin Drum postulates that, since ABC News is reporting that Hastert is suddenly under investigation by DOJ (link at Drum's place), that may have been the impetus for his indignation. Fun to contemplate, anyway.

Lizzy, I can see why the SEC requirements might clash with security requirements. There needs to be some mechanism to resolve those clashes.

It's the sort of thing where the President may just be signing papers generated somewhere such as the Pentagon, so it's possible that explicitly delegating the authority is no big deal, in the general case.

But it all comes down to the question of who you can trust. We have uncritical congressional oversight of appointments, and a President with a record of appointing incompetents. It also takes the President out of direct responsibility, and that's something which looks to be part of a pattern.

How long before it comes out that something crooked got slipped through?

Bush ordered the documents taken from Jefferson's office to be sealed for 45 days. That's got to be a push from the GOP because I'm sure Bush would like a Democrat to be indicted. I wonder if they consider frozen money to be documents.

And today's WashPost has an article saying that Gonzales, McNulty, and Mueller were going to quit if Bush gave back Jefferson's documents.

Welcome to Making Light's comment section. The moderators are Avram Grumer, Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Abi Sutherland. Abi is the moderator most frequently onsite. She's also the kindest. Teresa is the theoretician. Are you feeling lucky?

Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval. If you want to comment on a thread that's been closed, please post to the most recent "Open Thread" discussion.

You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread. (If this option is baffling, here's a quick introduction.)